English Language Learners and English-Only Learners' Response to Direct Vocabulary Instruction
English Language Learners and English-Only Learners' Response to Direct Vocabulary Instruction
复制标题
英语学习者和纯英语学习者对直接词汇教学的反应
DOI：
10.1080/10573569.2013.758943
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
D. McCoach
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yvel C. Crevecoeur;Michael D. Coyne;D. McCoach
我们检查了一个为期18周的幼儿园词汇干预研究的数据，以确定治疗结果是否有不同的效果，有利于英语学习者（ELLs）或英语学习者（EOLs），以及初始英语一般接受性词汇知识和词汇干预反应之间的关系是否不同的语言状态的功能。来自美国东北部3个不同学区的3所小学的参与者被分配到治疗条件（ELLs，n = 31; EOLs，n = 49）或无治疗条件（ELLs，n = 17; EOLs，n = 25）。训练有素的干预者提供直接的词汇教学，每周两次，每次20至25分钟。2 × 2方差分析的结果表明，参与者表现更好，如果他们（a）在治疗条件下，而不是没有治疗的条件和（B）归类为一个EOL，而不是ELL与证据的相互作用效应的目标词知识测量（TWKM）。回归分析表明，（a）中心预测试皮博迪图片词汇测试-III（PPVT-III）占统计学显着比例的方差后测试措施的治疗参与者和（B）语言状态没有解释任何额外的方差后测试措施。每个3个中介模型的依赖措施TWKM，PPVT-III，听力理解，使用自变量语言状态和中介变量为中心的预测试PPVT-III，导致完全调解。研究结果表明，治疗ELLs和治疗EOLs将最有可能表现同样出色的测试后的目标词和一般接受性词汇的措施，如果他们有类似的初始英语一般接受性词汇知识。
We examined data from an 18-week kindergarten vocabulary intervention study to determine whether treatment outcomes had differential effects that favored English language learners (ELLs) or English-only learners (EOLs) and whether the relationship between initial English general receptive vocabulary knowledge and response to vocabulary intervention differed as a function of language status. Participants from 3 northeastern U.S. elementary schools within 3 separate school districts were assigned to either a treatment condition (ELLs, n = 31; EOLs, n = 49) or no-treatment condition (ELLs, n = 17; EOLs, n = 25). Trained interventionists delivered direct vocabulary instruction using 1 storybook twice per week in 20- to 25-min sessions. Results from 2 × 2 analyses of variance indicated that participants performed better if they were (a) in the treatment condition rather than the no-treatment condition and (b) categorized as an EOL rather than an ELL with evidence of an interaction effect on a target-word knowledge measure (TWKM). Regression analyses indicated that (a) the centered pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–III (PPVT–III) accounted for a statistically significant proportion of the variance in posttest measures for treatment participants and (b) language status did not explain any additional variance in posttest measures. Each of the 3 mediation models for the dependent measures TWKM, PPVT–III, and listening comprehension, using the independent variable language status and the mediating variable centered pretest PPVT–III, resulted in full mediation. Findings indicate that treatment ELLs and treatment EOLs would most likely perform equally well on posttest target-word and general receptive vocabulary measures if they had similar initial English general receptive vocabulary knowledge.